The Casey Anthony Verdict

The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, even if it's 'likely' or 'probable' that she committed murder.

"This case [is] about seeking justice for Caylee . . ." So argued the prosecutor in the Casey Anthony murder case. He was wrong, and the jury understood that.

A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty. That's because only one person is on trial in a criminal case, and if that one person is acquitted, then by definition there can be no justice for the victim in that trial.

A criminal trial is neither a whodunit nor a multiple choice test. It is not even a criminal investigation to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even if it is "likely" or "probable" that a defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither likely nor probable satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result—acquittal in such a case—may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.

For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. This daunting standard finds its roots in the biblical story of Abraham's argument with God about the sinners of Sodom.

Abraham admonishes God for planning to sweep away the innocent along with the guilty and asks Him whether it would be right to condemn the sinners of Sodom if there were 10 or more righteous people among them. God agrees and reassures Abraham that he would spare the city if there were 10 righteous. From this compelling account, the legal standard has emerged.

That is why a criminal trial is not a search for truth. Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A civil trial, on the other hand, seeks justice for the victim. In such a case, the victim sues the alleged perpetrator and need only prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if it is more likely than not that a defendant was the killer, he is found liable, though he cannot be found guilty on that lesser standard.

Casey Anthony was not found innocent of her daughter's murder; she was found "not guilty."

That is why it was perfectly rational, though difficult for many to understand, for a civil jury to have found O.J. Simpson liable to his alleged victim, after a criminal jury had found him not guilty of his murder. It is certainly possible that if the estate of Caylee Anthony were to sue Casey Anthony civilly, a Florida jury might find liability.

Casey Anthony was not found innocent of her daughter's murder, as many commentators seem to believe. She was found "not guilty." And therein lies much of the misunderstanding about the Anthony verdict.

This misunderstanding is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of TV shows about criminal cases. On television and in the movies, crimes are always solved. Nothing is left uncertain. By the end, the viewer knows whodunit. In real life, on the other hand, many murders remain unsolved, and even some that are "solved" to the satisfaction of the police and prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to result in a conviction. The Scottish verdict "not proven" reflects this reality more accurately than its American counterpart, "not guilty."

Because many American murder cases, such as the Casey Anthony trial, are shown on television, they sometimes appear to the public as if they were reality television shows. There is great disappointment, therefore, when the result is a verdict of not guilty. On the old Perry Mason show, the fictional defense lawyer would not only get his client acquitted but he would prove who actually committed the murder. Not so in real life.

The verdict in the Casey Anthony case reflected the lack of forensic evidence and heavy reliance on circumstantial inferences. There was no evidence of a cause of death, the time of death, or the circumstances surrounding the actual death of this young girl. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the jury could have inferred homicide. But a reasonable jury could also have rejected that conclusion, as this jury apparently did. There are hundreds of defendants now in prison, some even on death row, based on less persuasive evidence than was presented in this case.

Juries are not computers. They are composed of human beings who evaluate evidence differently. The prosecutors in this case did the best they could with the evidence they had, though I believe they made a serious mistake in charging Casey Anthony with capital murder and introducing questionable evidence, such as that relating to the "smell of death" inside the trunk of Casey Anthony's car.

The defense also made mistakes, particularly by accusing Ms. Anthony's father of sexually abusing her. Although they leveled this unfounded accusation in an effort to explain why Casey had lied, it sounded like the kind of abuse excuse offered to justify a crime of violence. But a criminal trial is not about who is the better lawyer. It is about the evidence, and the evidence in this case left a reasonable doubt in the mind of all of the jurors. The system worked.

Featured at Aish.com:

About the Author

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School, served as an attorney in several high-profile court cases, and is a sought-after commentator on the Arab–Israeli conflict. He is the author of some 25 books, including The Case for Israel.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 87

(65)
Cracker Jax,
August 25, 2011 2:47 PM

Let her go....

True enough she was found Not Guilty but most believe she is Not Innocent. And, she may also earn a ton of money which she will definitely need. However, what kind of a life will she get? She's an unwanted and much despised human being. She'll have a lifetime of misery and loneliness she brought on herself. There is one line I'll always remember from the movie Saturday Night..."If you Fck life it will Fck you back." You don't get away with anything in life without paying for it.

(64)
marcia lewis,
July 22, 2011 12:58 AM

casey anthony

disapointing as it was the way this trial ended. her guilt simply wasn't proven. sadly she will now reep a fortune from thee media and inteviews.

(63)
jtstewart,
July 20, 2011 4:47 PM

Reasonable?

What does 'reasonable' mean to you? Definitely not the same thing it means to me. When I wake up and see that the ground and streets are wet, it's reasonable for ME to think that it rained. What would you say?

Larry,
January 22, 2012 3:06 PM

It could have snowed and melted. Might have been hail.

(62)
Anonymous,
July 20, 2011 6:15 AM

Not Guilty Verdict

Mr. Dershowitz knows when people are guilty like OJ Simpson. Now that Casey is free maybe she and Robert Blake can look for all the killers that are still out there.

(61)
Kabbes,
July 19, 2011 7:07 AM

France has a better way of saying it "not proven". In this case, it would of help the response from the public if the jury had said "not proven". Casey has spent 3 yrs in jail, she didn't get off the hook completely. Was the death of her daughter an accident? Did she murder her daughter? Wasn't that what the court had their doubts on, was it murder or an accident? Murder wasn't proven without a reasonable doubt that it could of been an accident. Was Casey guilty because her daughter died, yes, without a reasonable doubt, flat out murder, their was some doubts to that. Can Federal Court retry the case? If so, more counts may be charged against Casey.

(60)
TMay,
July 18, 2011 12:54 AM

words

Re Leiby Kletzky's murder, the suspected murder of Etan Patz in NYC came up. His murderer has not been convicted yet, even though the murder was about 30 years ago, for lack of evidence, no body at the time. There is a suspect, and there may be new evidence. The man is scheduled to get out of prison for having served a 20 year sentence for another crime, sexual molestation of a young boy, next year.
The Kletzky murder raises theoretical problems. If someone were to be mentally troubled but if they committed the crime, they might be given a verdict of "not guilty due to insanity" because our system requires them to have enough sanity to have formed an intent, and also to assist their counsel, which means they might go into an asylum and then get released, whereas IMHO in a theoretical case, if we were to know that a person did the crime based on the evidence presented in a trial, but if it was proven that they have mental problems, IMHO the mental defect might be an excuse to not give them the death penalty depending on the evidence of their competence or incompetence, however it would not make them"not guilty", it might make them "not responsible due to insanity but still dangerous" and therefore still in need of being locked up. There is the interest of the defendant, but there is also the interest of the society in being protected, and in protecting the innocent. A person may or may not have the capacity to form criminal intent but there is still a body of a once alive now dead child,and barring accident, and barring self-defense, which is ridiculous re a child,and including other crimes such as possible kidnapping and possible cover up, you still have to get from pt A a live child to pt B a dead child. If a person had a condition that resulted in the death of an innocent, and if the condition will not improve based on reasonable evidence, the mere passage of time is no reason to free the person.
I hope the Casey Anthony trial does not result in bad law.

(59)
s.h. parer,
July 17, 2011 4:32 PM

Judgement was in line with Torah

As Mr. Dershowitz is well aware, the "reasonable doubt" standard does come from Jewish teaching -- "for the sake of the one [innocent man] all go free."
Interviews with the jurors indicated that this was, indeed, their thinking: yes, something is fishy here but it was not proved. "Proved."
Jews don't execute on less than certainty.
Why? Because if you believe in God and that God is just, God will deal with what we let pass.
That is what "faith" means to a Jew, reliance on God to see it comes out right ... in the end.

(58)
Anonymous,
July 17, 2011 6:04 AM

something is wrong, very wrong with the way the system operated this time.

(57)
Rose,
July 17, 2011 1:18 AM

not guilty verdict

I agree with the article by Mr. Dershowutz. I am aware of the difficulty of proving "beyond a shadow of a doubt", as I was one of two women who were reviled and insulted by the other members of the jury in a very different and not publicized case, where we decided that the D.A. did not prove the charges against the defendant. It ended in a mistrial, and I was glad to be out of there, but I felt it was my duty to do it as I saw it, and there was definitley a "shadow of a doubt" in the case I was involved n.

(56)
YGMichaels,
July 17, 2011 12:19 AM

Resonable Doubt Standard-You Be The Judge

Based on the reasonable doubt standard would you have concluded that Casey Anthony was Guilty or Not Guilty?

(55)
Ruth Wagner,
July 16, 2011 10:44 PM

Your kidding me right?

I must say, I'm surprised at this article. Reasonable doubt. It begins with "reasonable" for a reason. A jury must use their reason, and as far as I'm concerned, the jury in this case checked their "reason" at the door. A just verdict? The jury never once examined one shred of evidence that was made available to them in the jury room...not one shred. That's what "deliberation" is for...going over testimony...going over evidence...NOT coming to a conclusion on personal opinion, which is just what this jury did. They were charged with the outcome of Casey Anthony's life, and they never asked for a "readback" or the opinion of all lawyers concerned, which is their right to do, and you would call this a "just" verdict? You say their verdict was due to a lack of forensic evidence...nonsense. Who are we to assume that FBI forensic's are not valid? Are we to believe that they testify in court, simply to go for the jugular? Again...nonsence. The FBI forsensic people are never paid to testify, however, defence hacks are ALWAYS PAID. How dare the Jury completely disregard the FBI results, Dr. G's results and opinion, and conclude there was no forensic evidence? The truth here is simply, they never intended to convict her...period. There is simply far more money and noteriety in cutting her loose. People are angry because their intelligence has been insulted. Their "reason" has been assalted. Zanny? Missing for 31 days without being reported? A loving mother?...really? A "Just verdict?" Not even a conviction for aggravated child abuse for not reporting her missing for 31 days? Does "reason" tell you she's innocent? I'm sorry, I mean you no disrespect, honestly, but please stop...our intelligence has been insulted enough.

(54)
Anonymous,
July 15, 2011 9:42 PM

Dershowitz

Yes, Mr. Dershowitz is a real Torah giant. Not.

(53)
Anonymous,
July 14, 2011 11:31 PM

The Jury made a big mistale. Why do you say we have to respect the jurys dicesion . I do not . One can say I respect the Jury's dicesion but just because one may think it is the right thing to say out loud does not mean that is what they really think .A reasonable person would know with out any doubt that the jury was very wrong.The case against Casey Anthony was proved. They proved that she killed her daughter. I think the jury did not understand reasonable doubt. Of course you are a Defense Laywer so you say what you say. I do not think that you really think that Casey was not guilty. Defense Laywers say what ever they have to say to have the Jury have reasonable doubt. I think Defense layweers should have to be honest so that justice can happen. i do not care about Casey it does not matter to me if she is free. It does not change anyting in my life. I just like for everyone to be honest about the case. I do not like to hear respect the Jury"s dicesion when the Jury made a very wrong dicesion. I like to see justice and honesty in the court. That is what bothers me not what happens to Casey.

(52)
Jane,
July 14, 2011 9:19 PM

Mr. Dershowitz Not a Fountain of Legal Wisdom

Mr. Drshowitz has not given us (me) the impression that he believes the legal system should be about determining the truth, but about playing mind games, and building as much wealth as possible by the practiioners. I will not serve on a jury because I do not believe the judicial system is fair and equitable for all people. It is all about wealth/money. Who ever has the most money and influence wins, the very great majority of times. There are thousands of murderers walking among us. I can quote many examples, but I will use an example of a case when I was working in the legal arena. A woman of about 45 had 4 dead husbands, and one surviving ex-husband who she had injured with multiple stabbings. She was only interested in the insurance money. She was never arrested or tried. How hard could it be to prove she killed one. All died suspiciously. There was no "reasonable doubt" in the Casey Anthony case.

(51)
Betty Silberman,
July 14, 2011 7:47 PM

Why was Scott Peterson convicted?

I understand your commentary & analysis. So why, then, was Scott Peterson sentenced to death row? It strikes me that he was also convicted on circumstantial 'evidence', rather than hard evidence. We never found out how he killed his wife. Same goes with Casey Anthony. The circumstances around the death of her daughter seem very much in the same vein at Scott's. Yet the jury did sentence him. In both cases, bodies were found, but didn't yield how the crime was committed. Curious about your thoughts.

(50)
anonymous,
July 14, 2011 11:39 AM

not first degree murder but manslaughter?child abuse

I live in Florida and what is coming out is that half of the jurors were in favor of manslaughter and the other half convinced them to let her go. No one says Casey had to be executed or convicted of first degree murder, but to walk free after a severe case of child neglect-hello-her child was missing for a month and she lied -and that is okay? no consequences for that...sorry...there is a problem.

(49)
Bob Harris,
July 14, 2011 2:06 AM

I disagree with Mr. Dershowitz's conclusion.

While I highly respect Alan Dershowitz and agree with his comments on the Anthony trial, I disagree with his conclusion that the system worked. According to his reasoning, the fact that the jury reached a verdict means that the system worked! In other words the system worked in all the obviously unfair trials of Blacks in days of segregation in the South! I think we need a more thoughtful way of determining the fairness of a trial.

(48)
Anonymous,
July 14, 2011 1:04 AM

jury was correct in verdicts

Based upon what the DA presented & the Defense refuted, I think that the Jury had to find Casey Not Guilty. The DA did not PROVE murder was committed, nor did he prove Casey was a murderer. L believe that the death was an accident & the FAMILY conspired to cover it up. The rage that the public has is brought on Casey by the media and the EXPERTS on TV talk shows. They found her guilty before the trial. Casey is mad at her family, because they left her holding the bag in this family conspiracy. If the media drops the story, I think the public outrage will go away. Where is the rage for the 3 children who are murdered in the US every day, by parents or grandparents??????

(47)
Brenda,
July 14, 2011 12:57 AM

I could not serve

I could never serve on a jury after the OJ case and the Anthony case. I could never live with any verdict because I know there is evidence that is not presented because it favors one side or the other to strongly. To me, as a potential juror, I would always know that the court is not interested in the truth but on the rules of the court and the games the lawyers play with the law. So no verdict I could ever come to would be based of truth, or facts in their totality, just what I am allowed to here and knowing only the information I am allowed to hear is not a fair or just way to come to a verdict.

(46)
YaelG,
July 13, 2011 11:55 PM

sorry, no one will make it ok by saying "the system worked"

it didnt work. A murderer is free. The system did NOT "work". the system defended the work of a murderer. Deal with it.

(45)
Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 8:47 PM

the only explanation

Taking into consideration all the known facts - there is one explanation. Casey was using chloroform to put her child to sleep while she partied or spent the night with friends - She wanted her parents to think she was being the Mom they wanted her to be so she made up the "nanny " and other lies. She did not intend to kill her daughter - but the last time she administered chloroform - it was too much. The child died. Casey tried to dispose of her instead of seeking medical help.
Unpremeditted murder - but certainly child abuse of the worst sort - plus the criminal disposal of the child.
There are no words to describe the horror of this -

(44)
Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 5:42 PM

Abraham admonishes G-d

i know this is not the point of the article but i was very disturbed by these words. who has any right to admonish G-d and if you look at the verse Abraham was pleading with g-d.

(43)
Sol Hachuel,
July 13, 2011 5:14 PM

Wait 'til the Civil Trial

.... as when the Goldmans brought civil suit against Simpson, which led to the jury finding him liable for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Zenaida Gonzales has already filed a civil suit, which will bring facts not allowed into evidence. The civil trial of Goldman vs. Simpson produced testimony from his friends that impeached his own statements. Casey Anthony will not have the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination; she will be forced to speak in depositions.

(42)
me,
July 13, 2011 4:19 PM

the legal system

in this country is a JOKE!!!!! watch the show "Injustice" that aired on Reelz the other night. IMO this country needs to get back to its roots and what we were founded on

(41)
Chani,
July 13, 2011 2:35 PM

There are only two people who know whether she did it or not, and that's Caylee and Casey. Hashem also knows, and he is the true judge. He is the one from whom real justice comes and if Caylee did murder her beautiful daughter, she'll pay for it in the end.
Humans are fallible, as is the technology we increasingly rely upon, and I for one would rather see ten guilty people go free than one innocent person condemned. However, YMMV.

(40)
Jon,
July 13, 2011 12:54 PM

We have lost our way

"That is why a criminal trial is not a search for truth. Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
While your statement here is true, it is also why, as a lawyer, I have become very disillusioned with my work. There was a time when the law was about finding the truth. Alas we abandoned that noble goal a long time. No wonder so many people hate lawyers. If we can find our way again, maybe the legal profession can redeem itself, but realistically I don't expect it to happen during my lifetime.

R.K.,
July 13, 2011 4:50 PM

True Justice

In the weekday prayer service, we pray:
Restore our judges as in former times, and our counselors as at the beginning; and remove from us sorrow and sighing. Reign over us, you alone, O Lord, with lovingkindness and compassion, and clear us in judgment. Blessed are you, O Lord, the King who loves righteousness and justice.
True justice cannot come without heavenly assistance.

(39)
Lee Dimin,
July 13, 2011 11:37 AM

Justice in Courts are for those charged in Court, no victims of crimes

The premise of the author is that in a criminal trial the question of justice lies in whether there is punishment for the crime against the victim of the trial. I believe that is a false premise in that the victim's justice had already been rendered, right or wrong. The question before the court in a trial, is a question whether a charged defendant is guilty of the crime charged "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the verdict after a trial of the evidence is the only justice subject of that trial - the victim no longer being a part thereof. Justice may just as well be an acquittal (not guilty finding) as it might be varied degrees of "guilty," pursuant to the chrage of the jjudge presiding. "Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong."
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919),

(38)
Bobby5000,
July 13, 2011 11:08 AM

The wrong forum for a distorted position

After Natalie Holloway was murdered in Aruba, her mother complained loudly. There was no need, the astute Mr. Dershowitz would explain. In her case, the prosecution decided not to even proceed without a body, The fact that another girl was thereafter murdered is simply no big deal.
Dershowitz is simply off-base with his strange theories of justice and his "no big deal if the guilty escape." Ron Goldman was not happy that his son's murderer escaped due to largely concocted claims of police misconducted and alleged tampering with evidence in the Simpson trial. We don't like when the defendant escapes punishment and writes a book called How I did it. It is appropriate for those who believe a wrong was done in the Anthony case to comment on it.
Moreover, this post has no place in a forum devoted to Jewish life, ethics, and morality.

Ann Brady,
July 13, 2011 2:37 PM

I agree with Bobby

Bobby, you couldn't have said it better. This reminds me of my work, years ago, with sexual assault victims. One rabidly feminist counsellor insisted on siding with a female abuser because she was female. Let us stick to healthy Jewish studies - Torah.

MABSH"Y,
July 19, 2011 2:37 PM

Fine, let's discuss Torah

The Talmud is very clear -- in order to for a beit din to convict on a captial offense, there had to be two eye witnesses to the crime (a requirment from the Torah), who warned the accused in advance that they were about to commit a capital crime. In addition, the Talmud brings a case if you see someone running out of a house holding a bloody knife, enter the house and see someone dead of stab wounds, you aboslutely MAY NOT convict them on the circumstantial evidence. Life is too precious for any kind of mistake to be made in a capital crime. God will take care of those that are guilty that were unable to be convicted in court. That is why we call him Dayan Emet -- the True Judge. Do not worry. If she is guilty, she will be punished, even if man can't do it.

(37)
brooke Sendele,
July 13, 2011 3:41 AM

ummm but yeah she did it.

ladydi,
July 13, 2011 11:19 AM

GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind - someone has to answer for this beautiful baby's murder.....so now Casey will go out and party hardy enjoying her freedom........she has a higher court to answer to one day - and I hope its soon!!!!

(36)
Andy,
July 13, 2011 2:42 AM

Well stated and agree that the US justice system worked but may be misleading to imply that a Jewish religious court operates similarly

'Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. " I may be mistaken but I think the welfare of the community takes priority under Jewish law.I'm not sure that halacha would always agree with letting 10 guilty persons go free rather than see an innocent person wrongly convicted. The decision of the court would depend on the danger posed to the community by those freed.

s.h. parker,
July 17, 2011 4:38 PM

Actually, halacha is precisely that

It is written that a Beit Din that imposes the death penalty once in 30 years (I may not be remembering that number correctly, forgive me) is a court of murderers. "No," replies a Gemarran, in 100 years.
The Rabbis actually discussed eliminating the death penalty.

(35)
Sharon,
July 13, 2011 1:27 AM

Thank You I like the way you explained it!

(34)
Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 12:47 AM

Ii watched all of the trial. I would have found Casey Anothy guilty beyond a resonable doubt. .

I think the jury did not understand reasonable doubt. The case to me was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We must respect the jury we are told. Is the jury then infallible. I think maybe another reasonable jury could have found Casey guilty. I watched the whole trial. Defense Lawyers do not care about the truth or justice they just want to try to show doubt so that they can win. A defense Laywer may even make up a story about an innocent man just to cause some doubt.

Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 2:46 PM

I agree with you Anonymous

There is little noble or just about litigation, today - with the exception of a few truly gifted and courageous lawyers who dare seek justice. Trials are about showcasing intellectual prowess, political correctness, winning and earning. When justice is served, we can only thank G-d for it.

(33)
Trudy,
July 12, 2011 11:48 PM

Poor Caylee.

I understand about more about how the trial works, however, that poor darling little girl will not be able to rest in peace, because no one was found guilty and convicted of her murder.

(32)
Jackie Verbell,
July 12, 2011 11:35 PM

She is guilty as hell!!!!

I think the jury was totally WRONG!!! What did they want to see her actually murdering this beautiful little girl. Another murderer like O.J. getting away with it. And, they say you can never get away with murder.
If she didn't want this poor adorable child, why didn't she put her up for adoption. So many couples and single people would have grabbed her so fast. Or put her on a church step or a synagogue. No, that never entered her mind if she has one. She wanted that child out of her way in the worst possible way so she could never come back again and ruin her love & social life.
Rot in hell Casey. Your day will come believe me!!!!

(31)
Anon,
July 12, 2011 10:22 PM

Actually the evidence of cadaver dogs in the Casey Anthony case is NOT questionable as they are trained to detect a specific human dead body chemical (cadaverine), and nothing else (as seen in the Madeleine McCann case when the chemical was only detected in areas that had been in the presence of her parents)

(30)
Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 10:01 PM

Casey Anthony should have been found guilty.

With all due respect to Mr. Dershowitz, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is different from doubt. Being 99% certain that Casey Anthony murdered her child is not reasonable doubt. Just because Jose Baez befuddled the jury with allegations against Anthony's parents, there may have been doubt,but it was not reasonable doubt. The samething hold true for O.J. Mr. Desrhowitz and his cohorts may have thrown in the kitchen sink when defending OJ, but there was no reasonable doubt. Both juries should have been set straight about the difference between doubt and reasonable doubt.

(29)
Annie,
July 12, 2011 8:50 PM

Thanks, but many people will never get it

The not guilty/innocent confusion will never die. We had a case here in New Zealand (the Bain case) that proved that.
I watch very, very little television, apart from the news, but I do like SVU, as that often doesn't have nice neat endings-as happens in life. It's very realistic in that way. Sometimes we know that the thing will drag on & on, and sometimes a criminal walks free and so on...
I know what I think happened in this particular case. The Scottish 'not proven' verdict has a lot of merit, even if it has some drawbacks. Maybe NZ & The USA could consider adopting it.

(28)
GRACE,
July 12, 2011 8:19 PM

God knows she guilty

She will be constantly reminded of her evil ways.

(27)
Linda,
July 12, 2011 8:04 PM

I have mixed feelings too and don't want to be judgmental

The author does present a good explanation, however,
I think there are many times when justice is not served in our system this way. She sure made a lot of mistakes and surely does appear to be guilty regardless of how our system works.

(26)
SYLVIA GREENBERG,
July 12, 2011 7:47 PM

GIVE ME A BREAD. STOP PLAYING ON WORDS. SHE KILLED THAT BABBY

(25)
clemons8,
July 12, 2011 6:35 PM

The Casey Anthony Verdict.

Even in Darkness the Light of Understanding shines through. Thank You.

(24)
Lynda,
July 12, 2011 6:33 PM

Explains it all

I appreciate the way the court action was explained. After feeling utterly frustrated by the decision, as well as OJ Simpon's case, Dershowitz explained clearly how the court system works. Thank you.

(23)
Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 6:31 PM

Great explanation on this matter.

(22)
Sara,
July 12, 2011 6:06 PM

Casey whole family seem to be guilty!

The mother, father and brother in my opinion took part in Caylee's death. Casey did not do this alone, she had help from family members. This is why I feel she should not have been found guilty. When you look at the testimony from the family members they all took part in the disposal of her body.

(21)
norman Dobbs,
July 12, 2011 4:39 PM

Enlightening

Thank you for making this so clear that I really understood.

(20)
KM,
July 12, 2011 4:39 PM

Reasonable Verdict????

The key word here is beyond a "reasonable" doubt. It is reasonable to believe a person is guilty of a murder when that person was the sole custodian of the murdered person; the car's trunk (to which the only person who is suspected of murder has the key during the time the death occurred) smells like a dead corpse; and the MOTHER of the dead person behaves in a manner inconsistent with a loving and caring mother during the time she knows her daughter is missing (partying and states her daughter is with a fictional nanny); . . . . What REASONABLE PERSON COULD HAVE A "REASONABLE" doubt that Casey murdered her daughter????? The jury didn't understand "reasonable" doubt.

Leslie,
July 12, 2011 9:31 PM

For once the system worked

You didn't understand the article, it's not about reason, it's about evidence, there was no evidence to link Casey to the murder, and besides these people are regular off the street people , they sat through the case learned all the information, I don't think anyone would have done differently. It's easier to speak from the outside when you're influenced by the median but if you're actually there you see it a little differently.

Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 3:12 AM

I agree the jury did not understand reasonable doubt I believe that Casey is guilty beyond a resonable doubt. I watched the whole trial. I can not undertand how a reasonable person could not see she was proven guilty. There was so much evidence. George was not on trial and when Jose in his opening statement said such awful lies about George I thought what reasonable jury would believe that . I thought surly reasonable people could see that he was just trying to create doubt for the jury.I was wrong the jury believed Jose. Defense Lawyers do not care what they say or how the say it they just want to win. How sad.

(19)
Mike McConnell,
July 12, 2011 4:35 PM

The Verdict

It was the right verdict. Torah has an even higher standard than the American Justice system. Now it is up to HaShem to take care of the situation, and He will in His own way.

(18)
AlbertE.,
July 12, 2011 4:02 PM

NOT SO!

"For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted."
This is not so. This concept is only of fairly recent origin and only in those nations that have been democratic. In many western nations, democracy and a fair trial are something that is very recent.

(17)
JJ,
July 12, 2011 3:48 PM

Let's compare for a minute this case and the Scott Peterson case. A torso was found, Kaykee's bones and skull were found. A single hair was found, also a single hair was found. He sold her truck while she was still missing, she was having fun with friends. He tried to flee to Mexico, she lied and lied until she couldn't lie no more. Both circumstancial, yet he was found guilty. I wonder.

Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 3:59 AM

I agree

The case was left to the whims and opinion of the jury. It's really that simple.

Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 2:55 PM

I wonder too

Had C. Anthony been a man, she would have been found guilty. We see this time and again in criminal trials, in family court, in sentencing. A double standard of justice where Lady Justice has her blindfold lifted up on the side of women. We need to straighten her blindfold.

Basya,
July 14, 2011 8:51 AM

maybe in criminal trials -- not in family court

What you said may be true in criminal trials, but from what I've read it is not at all true in family court.

(16)
Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 3:46 PM

Thank the Lord

Thank the Lord that decisions in criminal cases are NOT made by computers!!!

(15)
Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 3:43 PM

Casey Anthony trial

With all due respect, I strongly debate that the system worked. I do not believe that the jurors understood the difference between beyond a reasonable doubt and without any doubt.....there were lesser charges.......and I do not believe that they understood a circumstantial case.....I also feel that they bought into the defense's story, without a stitch of evidence that Caylee drowned. There are so many places that I believe that the system did not work......

(14)
Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 3:17 PM

Too bad the prosecutors didn't charge her with
"obstruction of justice." She would have spent at least 10 years in jail.
What about the other 4 charges ?

(13)
Halli,
July 12, 2011 3:00 PM

Thank you for your practical article

Although I wasn't following the case particularly closely, as a lawyer, I feel strongly that there was simply not enough evidence of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and I've been shocked and dismayed at the finger-pointing posts and photos of protestors with signs bashing and even threatening the jury. I too believe that the charges were wrong, as there was simply no evidence of a murder, and it appears more likely that in the event of an accidental death, Casey, with deranged lack of caring, mishandled the body and failed to report the death, which would have been more appropriate charges. We will never know the truth, but to convict someone of murder without actual evidence would have set a dangerous precedent.

Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 2:59 PM

That precedent has already been set.

A quick review of civil rights and the kind of 'justice' meted out to Native Americans, Blacks and Latinos will expose that myth.

(12)
Terry,
July 12, 2011 2:22 PM

Reaasonable doubt vs. unreasonable doubt.

If you took out the misdirections and the twisting of words, the case was pretty simple. Whether her daddy cheated on her mommy, had nothing to do with the case. The defense saying,"Look at him. Any real father would fall on the sword for his daughter." shows that even the defense knew they couldn't win on the facts. Oh well, God will sort it all out eventually.

(11)
Randi Fishenfeld,
July 12, 2011 2:05 PM

Yes

Thank you for clarifiying this. As a fellow human being, I struggled with my frustration over this verdict. But, as a retired attorney, I understood the verdict. Our legal system is not set up to be a judge of morality. Rightfully so, as that would lead to horrific abuse. If Casey is guilty, she will have to live with herself knowing what she has done. I'm sure it will haunt her for the rest of her life (provided she's not a sociopath).

(10)
Pat LoGiudice,
July 12, 2011 1:58 PM

Am glad the article was published. It made me THINK !

I watched the trial and was furious at the verdict! I am grateful for an "education" and reminder as to the ACTUAL law and its IMPORTANCE in preserving our system of justice......

(9)
David Oliwek,
July 12, 2011 1:54 PM

Though justice for an innocent child is deferred it is not yet denied. The jurors were brilliant. The accused sure stands guilty of great lack of judgement and young foolish action. As Mr. Dershowitz so well defined the system worked here. Casey Anthony was rightly found not guilty. The death of the victim should never define the life of the accused, The door is now yet open to find the the true murderer. Had Casey been executed we may have murdered another innocent. No one wants that. No one would accuse the system of perfection but in this case it worked. Thank You to the brave and wise jury,

Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 3:53 PM

Casey Anthony response

I do not believe that further investigation will be done in an attempt to find the truth. I believe that the system failed and that Casey is guilty of something......and should have been held accountable for something.....even if it was not reporting her daughter missing/dead for all that time. Even at 31 days, she NEVER reported anything, her mother, Cindy did......this was not in my opinion justice.....it allowed a woman to go free......who at the very least is guilty of child neglect---not seeking out authority for a missing child---but now the defense says that she drowned......why would her father take the body from an accident and set his daughter up for a murder charge.....it does not make sense.

Marina,
July 12, 2011 5:30 PM

I think that she has commited a murder. The girl was found with a duct tape on her mouth. She was only two years old. If she just disappeared, so that mommy did not know where....why would she lie that she got drowned? It's strange....she should started search instead of partying....whoever did it the girl is lost.

Sarah,
July 12, 2011 8:51 PM

Not true

It was my understanding that she was not found with duct tape on her mouth. There was duct tape in the vicinity of where her body was found. Let's be careful with the facts and not add to what is already a murky situation.

(8)
marcy elman,
July 12, 2011 1:47 PM

Why is everyone in such a rush for judgement. Its was quite evident that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, This is our system. What is it that they dont get?

Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 3:56 PM

Casey Anthony response

It is not evident to me.....they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt to me.....and to much of our country.
If they could not in their minds get to murder, then certainly there was child abuse in not reporting a missing/dead child.......there should have been accountability--not a free walk......for the neglect of this innocent child.

(7)
Buz Whelan,
July 12, 2011 1:46 PM

Jury got it wrong

Mr. Dershowitz' argument assumes the infallibility of juries; I do not. It also argues, by implication, that if a murderer can conceal a body until it completely decomposes or is never found, we must find that person not guilty because we can't prove conclusively the cause of death. Ridiculous argument. The state proved their case. The jury blew it.

Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 8:53 PM

Exactly the opposite argument

The author was arguing exactly the opposite, not that juries are infallible but that, composed of human beings and not computers, are absolutely fallible.

Anonymous,
July 14, 2011 11:48 PM

You are so right. Mr Dershowitz' argument does say that the jury must be infallibile.Mr. Dershowitz is an important person that many believe the things he says. For him now to say that Casey was not guilty and the jury was right is so wrong of him to do .

(6)
Suzy Blitz,
July 12, 2011 1:34 PM

Casey's future

Casey may have been found "not guilty" by a jury, but she will go through life with the mark of Cain, a vagabond who will be looking over her shoulder the rest of her life. Shalom will be something she will never experience.

(5)
linda,
July 12, 2011 1:25 PM

SAD

I WONDER IF THE VERDICT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF SHE HAD BEEN BLACK?

Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 11:25 AM

dont pull race into this ......... it has nothing to do with black, white or green, the defense did a better job than the DA.....

ub,
July 14, 2011 1:04 AM

I am so sick of the race card. It is such an old argument. For Petes sake we have a black president. Stop the pity party. So you are a black person, So what. No one cares what color this child was, she was a child. who deserved her life.

(4)
Francis,
July 12, 2011 1:24 PM

Excellent Article

Thank you Mr. Dershowitz for your excellent/needed article. It is truly a shame that Caylee life was cut so short, and we may never know the truth about what 'really' happened. But it is high time we put down the finger pointed at the jurors. IANAL but I feel they did exactly what was required of them. Putting aside emotions in a case like this, I'm sure, is extremely difficult. Pardon the pun but Joe Friday said it best; "Just the facts, Mam, Just the facts!"

(3)
zingara,
July 12, 2011 1:23 PM

a lot of old comedians used to have a schtick called "double talk"....alan, have you been in the archives watching OLD black & white movies of those old zany clowns?!

(2)
Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 1:01 PM

Anthony case

I had the greatest respect for you until you got on the OJ case. You know what the truth is in the Casey Anthony case. Semantics won't cut it.

(1)
Anonymous,
July 12, 2011 11:31 AM

I have mixed feelings about this. There have been plenty of times where people were convicted of murder on much less evidence. So, it makes you wonder. Sure, it was based on evidence. But, in that case, why don't we all go rob banks, as long as we can't get anyone to prove it. Legal doesn't equal moral. Unfortunately. However, I did read somewhere that some of the jury were not happy with their decision and wished there were more evidence. Had they tried to charge her with a lesser crime, perhaps there would have been less pressure on the jury to convict her with little evidence. I say a few years is better than none. Just my opinion.

Anonymous,
July 13, 2011 3:06 PM

It may be 'just' your opinion, but in my books it is a wise opinion. You're comments are bang on.

I've been striving to get more into spirituality. But it seems that every time I make some progress, I find myself slipping right back to where I started. I'm getting discouraged and feel like a failure. Can you help?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Spiritual slumps are a natural part of spiritual growth. There is a cycle that people go through when at times they feel closer to God and at times more distant. In the words of the Kabbalists, it is "two steps forward and one step back." So although you feel you are slipping, know that this is a natural process. The main thing is to look at your overall progress (over months or years) and be able to see how far you've come!

This is actually God's ingenious way of motivating us further. The sages compare this to teaching a baby how to walk. When the parent is holding on, the baby shrieks with delight and is under the illusion that he knows how to walk. Yet suddenly, when the parent lets go, the child panics, wobbles and may even fall.

At such times when we feel spiritually "down," that is often because God is letting go, giving us the great gift of independence. In some ways, these are the times when we can actually grow the most. For if we can move ourselves just a little bit forward, we truly acquire a level of sanctity that is ours forever.

Here is a practical tool to help pull you out of the doldrums. The Sefer HaChinuch speaks about a great principle in spiritual growth: "The external awakens the internal." This means that although we may not experience immediate feelings of closeness to God, eventually, by continuing to conduct ourselves in such a manner, this physical behavior will have an impact on our spiritual selves and will help us succeed. (A similar idea is discussed by psychologists who say: "Smile and you will feel happy.")

That is the power of Torah commandments. Even if we may not feel like giving charity or praying at this particular moment, by having a "mitzvah" obligation to do so, we are in a framework to become inspired. At that point we can infuse that act of charity or prayer with all the meaning and lift it can provide. But if we'd wait until being inspired, we might be waiting a very long time.

May the Almighty bless you with the clarity to see your progress, and may you do so with joy.

In 1940, a boatload 1,600 Jewish immigrants fleeing Hitler's ovens was denied entry into the port of Haifa; the British deported them to the island of Mauritius. At the time, the British had acceded to Arab demands and restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The urgent plight of European Jewry generated an "illegal" immigration movement, but the British were vigilant in denying entry. Some ships, such as the Struma, sunk and their hundreds of passengers killed.

If you seize too much, you are left with nothing. If you take less, you may retain it (Rosh Hashanah 4b).

Sometimes our appetites are insatiable; more accurately, we act as though they were insatiable. The Midrash states that a person may never be satisfied. "If he has one hundred, he wants two hundred. If he gets two hundred, he wants four hundred" (Koheles Rabbah 1:34). How often have we seen people whose insatiable desire for material wealth resulted in their losing everything, much like the gambler whose constant urge to win results in total loss.

People's bodies are finite, and their actual needs are limited. The endless pursuit for more wealth than they can use is nothing more than an elusive belief that they can live forever (Psalms 49:10).

The one part of us which is indeed infinite is our neshamah (soul), which, being of Divine origin, can crave and achieve infinity and eternity, and such craving is characteristic of spiritual growth.

How strange that we tend to give the body much more than it can possibly handle, and the neshamah so much less than it needs!